Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If there is any mind reading, it is in the reply to me, making assertions not based on fact, but on an ASSumption.
Anybody can answer any post when the answer is so clear. Protestations make no difference when faced with truth!
This is an open forum, you know!
Yes, Paul taught as Yeshua - what people have done with what he taught is not his fault.
Read it again - thinking of software code, and understand what a logic bomb is.
I love the way you try to hijack Christianity, too. Is that close enough to the headline subject, or are you going to complain to the moderator again?
I agree Christ started the Christian church.....not the Roman Catholic Church we know today. Those are different entities. One is biblically based and one is not.
“I agree Christ started the Christian church.....not the Roman Catholic Church we know today.”
Christ started the Catholic Church - it is the only Catholic Church, the one we know today.
“Those are different entities. One is biblically based and one is not.”
Incorrect. The Catholic Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church of today and is entirely biblical. Also, you should realize the Church existed BEFORE the New Testament. Thus, the Church is biblical, not “biblically based” because what came first cannot be based on what came second. Many Protestants make that anachronistic error because they know little about Church history or logic.
It be interesting to see what you claim Jesus taught. More than likely you'd wind up with Christ's words condemning you as easily as Paul's. Also note:
You destroy the authority and legitimacy of the Bible since you remove, essentially, all of it. Such a stupid position requires us to believe that the words of Jesus, which were written down by the Apostles, remained infallible, while everything else didn't.
age of one's church is irrelevant. you can exist for centuries and be totally wrong.
The Christian Church dates back to the time of Christ. It could be said it began at Pentecost.
Where are the apostles called bishops in the New Testament?
btw...I've read my Bible and I'm glad to hear a catholic reading theirs.
still waiting for you to show me in the Bible where Mary is declared sinless.
Show me the following biblical verses, without having to resort to "tradition", that in context clearly teach the following:
1) the papacy and the current structure used by the RCC today.
2) Mary was sinless
3) Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ
4) Peter was the primary apostle
5) Explain the three verses the RCC uses to claim tradition and the context of those three verses.
Christ did start His church....not the manifestation we know as the RCC today with the emphasis on praying to Mary, Mary being born and remaining sinless, Mary remaining a virgin, the papacy, indulgences, taking verses out of context to justify false teachings, appealing to men who wrote commentaries to base beliefs, the infallibility of the pope, and on and on and one. Not one of these can be supported by any clear reading of the Bible in context.
Mary is Mediatrix, CCC 969, "Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'"
Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation, CCC 969, "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . "
Mary delivers souls from death, CCC 966, " . . . You [Mary] conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death."
CCC 2677, "By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender 'the hour of our death' wholly to her care."
CCC 2068, "so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments,"
CCC 82, ". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."
Hm... this kind of glosses over the first and most important point: Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was alive. He claims Jesus spoke to him after death. Now, we don’t fall for Muhammed’s claims of Gods and angels talking to him, why do Christians fall for Paul’s claims?
Uh oh.
Paul did met Jesus when He was alive!
Muhammed is a false prophet. Any "angel" who spoke to him was a demon.
RE: why do Christians fall for Paul’s claims?
1) Because the same Luke, who wrote one of the gospels also wrote the book of Acts, which tells us how Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus.
2) Because the apostles, who were initially skeptical of Paul, carefully heard Paul’s testimony and finally ACCEPTED him as one of them.
3) Because Peter himself, the leader of the apostles ACCEPTED Paul and wrote that he considered Paul’s letters to be scripture.
4) Because the PUBLIC miracles of Paul ( as chronicled by Luke ), i.e. Healing a lame man from birth (Acts 14:8-10
), raising Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-11), healing a demon possessed girl (Acts 16:16-18), etc. TESTIFIES to his commission from Christ.
Before the crucifixion? When? Where?
Nonsense. Nobody *invented* Christianity.
The gospel is the good news of salvation offered to mankind by a loving God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Any religious system invented is the creation of man and does not contribute at all to one’s salvation.
*Christianity* as we have come to know it, is more *churchianity* than anything resembling what happened in the book of Acts in the NT.
RE: Muhammed is a false prophet. Any “angel” who spoke to him was a demon.
Or he never met an “angel”, he made the story all up.
Many scholars claim that several educated men wrote the book.
You make a good point and in reality all we have is Pauls word and nothing else except one comment from Peter and he did not call Paul an apostle.
I do believe Paul thought himself to be Chosen but the story he told is nothing more than his word whether it was written by him or if it was wrote by luke.
And why did Paul dismiss them as all but irrelevant?>>>>>
Any one can see by reading that Paul wanted to be top dog, he tried to make the others look bad in a subtle way.
I believe it was well after Jesus was gone. Paul said he saw a blinding light and heard a voice. That's very convenient for a man who seeks power, and he clearly sought power initially by persecuting Christians. Paul seems a little shady to me.
“Paul did met Jesus when He was alive!”
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.